Criminal proceedings stemming from contractual or administrative disputes must be quashed under the court's inherent powers if the complaint is mala fide, aims to pressure the accused for personal or civil gain, and lacks the essential ingredients of criminal offenses, constituting an abuse of legal process.

By means of present C482 application, applicants have put to challenge the judgment and order dated 04.03.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Case No.369 of 2010, Samay Singh vs. Vinit Kumar Goel & another as well as the judgment and order dated 23.12.2014 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal in Criminal Revision No.29 of 2014, Vinit Kumar Goel & another vs. State of Uttarakhand & another and the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.369 of 2010, Samay Singh vs. Vinit Kumar Goel.

2. The brief facts of the case are that an agreement was executed between Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) and respondent no. 2 on 01.03.2008 for the dealership of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) within the distribution area of Narendra Nagar and a radius of 15 kilometres within District Tehri Garhwal. An appointment letter of the same date was issued by HPCL. The said agreement contained an arbitration clause. A routine inspection was conducted by the Executive Sales Officer, Ghaziabad Sale Area, and Sales Officer, Indian Oil Corporation, Dehradun Sale Area, on 19 and 20 February 2009, during which various irregularities were detected. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 25.02.2009 was issued to respondent no. 2, calling for an explanation within fifteen days. The respondent submitted his reply dated 02.03.2009, and after due consideration, HPCL imposed a monetary penalty of Rs.3,52,000/- through order dated 13.05.2009. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred Writ Petition No. 770 (M/S) of 2009 before this Court, which was disposed of with directions to deposit the penalty amount. Subsequently, further inspections revealed additional irregularities, and a fresh show cause notice dated 28.11.2009 was issued. The respondent submitted a written reply dated 31.12.2009, upon which the Chief Regional Manager concluded that the conduct of the respondent no.2 amounted to violation of contractual and statutory obligations.

3. Accordingly, by order dated 12.04.2010, the sale and supply operations of M/s Dev Bhumi Gas Service were suspended. The respondent, being aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No. 530 (M/S) of 2010, which was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 16.04.2010, holding that an alternative remedy under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was available. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 preferred an application under Section 9 of the said Act before the District Judge, Ghaziabad, registered as Arbitration Case No. 213 of 2010, but failed to secure any interim relief. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 filed the present criminal complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Narendra Nagar, District Tehri Garhwal, levelling allegations of forgery and manipulation of documents. The applicants contend that the complaint is frivolous, motivated, and filed solely to obstruct the lawful discharge of official duties by the HPCL officers. Hence, this C 482 application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the disputes raised in the impugned complaint were already pending before the competent adjudicatory forum. By instituting the present complaint, respondent no. 2 has deliberately sought to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute, in order to exert undue pressure upon the applicants. It is further submitted that respondent no. 2 himself has, in clear terms, admitted that the contents of the documents in question were never altered